argument51 <彼岸小组第一次作业> by melody-qu

melody-quUID: 2970250

The statement demonstrates an experience in which two doctors cure two groups of people in different ways, and judging from two recuperation time, the speaker assert that antibiotics should be advised as part of the treatment in muscle strain and even cites the experiment as a sporting evidence of a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. After comprehensive consideration, I find it to be ill conceived.

To begin with, we must notice that the experiencing samples are two groups of people with different physical conditions. In this case, we can hardly have a clear and accurate assessment of their conditions. Their body conditions vary from one to another, which may affect the recovering time. What’s more, the seriousness of their injury is also unclear; however, it is without doubt one of the decisive factor of the recovering time. If the objective prerequisites are not the same, then any conduct and the following results getting from them are not convincing.

In addition, the second group who doesn’t take antibiotics is not necessarily the ones who get secondary infections. The antibiotics can heal and prevent secondary infections to some extent, but the contrary aspect is not always the right. If this assumption exists, then the experiencing result can’t serve as a proof.

Another different condition between the two groups is the conductors, who are with expertise and experiences in relative aspects. The doctor specializing in sports medicine is likely to be more skilled in this illness than a general doctor, or in other case, the general doctor may have operated the similar cases before so that he is more experienced than the former. With all these aspects unknown, it is not a wise way to come to a conclusion.

There is a little point we must pay attention to, that is a fact that in the first group the patients are given antibiotics while in the second group, the patients are given some sweets to eat instead of antibiotics. It seems that the doctors assume the antibiotics compatible to every experimenter and sugar pills harmless as well, while acctually no scientific statistics can provide any proof of this, so we can hardly free antibiotics and sugar pills from any side effects which may cause influence in the patients’ recuperation.

To sum up, the speaker wrongly gets the conclusion from four aspects: 1.The objective condition, that is to say , the patients hold different physical condition which makes the comparison unconvincing. 2. The second group who doesn’t take antibiotics can not necessarily get secondary infections, so the conclusion getting from this is not proper.3. The operators of the experiment are of different skills and expertise, so we have reason to suspect that this will lead to the difference in the final results. 4. The tiny sugar pills, which seem unimportant, have the possibility to have side effect and influence the experiment. With the four suspicions, the statement is hard to accept. In order to strengthen the statement, the speaker had better improve the experiment from these ways: 1.To conduct an experiment with the same patients receiving different treatments from one doctor. 2. Provide accurate scientific research results about the relations of antibiotics and secondary infections. 3. Make sure that any additional substance, like sugar pills and antibiotics, have no more side effects and are not allergic to any experimenter.

第一次写argu,文章段落写起来还不是太熟悉，拜托组友们多提意见，不胜感激~~

banglowUID: 2969783

The statementdemonstrates an experience in which two doctors cure two groups of people indifferent ways, and judging from two recuperation time, the speaker asserts thatantibiotics should be advised as part of the treatment in muscle strain andeven cites the experiment as a sporting evidence of a hypothesis that secondaryinfections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe musclestrain. After comprehensive consideration, I find it to be ill conceived.

To begin with, we must notice that theexperiencing samples are two groups of people with different physicalconditions. In this case, we can hardly have a clear and accurate assessment oftheir conditions. Their body conditions vary from one to another, which mayaffect the recovering time. What’s more, the seriousness of their injury isalso unclear; however, it is without doubt one of the decisive factor of therecovering time. If the objective prerequisites are not the same, then anyconduct and the following results getting from them are not convincing.两组对比没有控制其他因素
In addition, the second group who doesn’t takeantibiotics is not necessarily the ones who get secondary infections. Theantibiotics can heal and prevent secondary infections to some extent, but thecontrary aspect is not always the right. If this assumption exists, then theexperiencing result can’t serve as a proof.不一定导致二次感染
Another different condition between the twogroups is the conductors, who are with expertise and experiences in relativeaspects. The doctor specializing in sports medicine is likely to be moreskilled in this illness than a general doctor, or in other case, the generaldoctor may have operated the similar cases before so that he is moreexperienced than the former. With all these aspects unknown, it is not a wiseway to come to a conclusion.归结为第一个类型，两个组的条件不同
There is a little point we must pay attentionto, that is a fact that in the first group the patients are given antibioticswhile in the second group, the patients are given some sweets to eat instead ofantibiotics. It seems that the doctors assume the antibiotics compatible toevery experimenter and sugar pills harmless as well, while acctually noscientific statistics can provide any proof of this, so we can hardly freeantibiotics and sugar pills from any side effects which may cause influence inthe patients’ recuperation.
这有点牵强我觉得，sugar会有什么影响？有点狡辩了～
To sum up, the speaker wrongly gets theconclusion from four aspects: 1.The objective condition, that is to say , thepatients hold different physical condition which makes the comparisonunconvincing. 2. The second group who doesn’t take antibiotics can notnecessarily get secondary infections, so the conclusion getting from this isnot proper.3. The operators of the experiment are of different skills andexpertise, so we have reason to suspect that this will lead to the differencein the final results. 4. The tiny sugar pills, which seem unimportant, have thepossibility to have side effect and influence the experiment. With the foursuspicions, the statement is hard to accept. In order to strengthen the statement,the speaker had better improve the experiment from these ways: 1.To conduct anexperiment with the same patients receiving different treatments from onedoctor. 2. Provide accurate scientific research results about the relations ofantibiotics and secondary infections. 3. Make sure that any additionalsubstance, like sugar pills and antibiotics, have no more side effects and arenot allergic to any experimenter.结尾需要简洁一些

melody-quUID: 2970250

谢谢啦，呵呵

muzhihao1UID: 2959675

argument51 <彼岸小组第一次作业> by melody-qu
The statement demonstrates（cite） an experience（experiment,下同） in which two doctors cure two groups of people in different ways, and （这里不要用逗号，断句好点）judging from two recuperation time, the speaker assert that antibiotics should be advised as part of the treatment in muscle strain and even cites the experiment as a sporting evidence of a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. （个人感觉这里论述得有点乱，逻辑不清楚）After comprehensive consideration, I find it to be ill conceived.

To begin with, we must notice that the experiencing samples are two groups of people with different physical conditions. In this case, we can hardly have a clear and accurate assessment of their conditions. Their body conditions vary from one to another, which may affect the recovering（recovery） time. What’s more, the seriousness of their injury is also unclear; however, it is without doubt one of the decisive factor of the recovering time. If the objective prerequisites are not the same, then any conduct and the following results getting from them are not convincing.

In addition, the second group who doesn’t take antibiotics is not necessarily the ones who get secondary infections. The antibiotics can heal and prevent secondary infections to some extent, but the contrary aspect is not always the right. If this assumption exists, then the experiencing result can’t serve as a proof.（感觉逻辑不清楚，“the contrary aspect”意思不清）

Another different condition between the two groups is the conductors（？）, who are with expertise and experiences in relative aspects. The doctor specializing in sports medicine is likely to be more skilled in this illness than a general doctor, or in other case, the general doctor may have operated the similar cases before so that he is more experienced than the former. With all these aspects unknown, it is not a wise way to come to a conclusion.

There is a little point we must pay attention to, that is a fact that in the first group the patients are given antibiotics while in the second group, the patients are given some sweets to eat instead of antibiotics. It seems that the doctors assume the antibiotics compatible to every experimenter and sugar pills harmless as well, while acctually no scientific statistics can provide any proof of this, so we can hardly free antibiotics and sugar pills from any side effects which may cause influence in the patients’ recuperation.

To sum up, the speaker wrongly gets the conclusion from four aspects: 1.The objective condition, that is to say , the patients hold different physical condition which makes the comparison unconvincing. 2. The second group who doesn’t take antibiotics can not necessarily get secondary infections, so the conclusion getting from this is not proper.3. The operators of the experiment are of different skills and expertise, so we have reason to suspect that this will lead to the difference in the final results. 4. The tiny sugar pills, which seem unimportant, have the possibility to have side effect and influence the experiment. With the four suspicions, the statement is hard to accept. In order to strengthen the statement, the speaker had better improve the experiment from these ways: 1.To conduct an experiment with the same patients receiving different treatments from one doctor. 2. Provide accurate scientific research results about the relations of antibiotics and secondary infections. 3. Make sure that any additional substance, like sugar pills and antibiotics, have no more side effects and are not allergic to any experimenter.



(推荐看一下argment就应该这样写，了解攻击的顺序是怎样的。看完我们可以再讨论)